Suresh Kumar Bhandarkar and 10 Others vs The State of M.P.

Alok Aradhe, J.—Parties through their counsel.

The petitioners have filed this petition seeking benefit of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Gopal Chawla & Ors. vs. State of M.P. and Others, decided on 15.12.2010 in W.A. No. 596/10.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, it is observed that subsequent to the aforesaid order of the Division Bench, the matter was examined by the State and the claim made by the Gurujis for minimum of the scale that was being paid to regular teachers was rejected. After rejection, another petition was filed by Gopal Chawla before the Gwalior Bench of this Court which was dismissed by the judgment reported in Gopal Chawala and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, , in the following terms:-

In totality, I am unable to hold that the petitioners are either entitled for equal pay for equal work or for even minimum of the scale because there is no wholesome parity demonstrated by them. I am also unable to hold that the petitioners are entitled to get minimum wages. However, on the basis of aforesaid analysis, I am inclined to direct the respondents to reconsider the amount of "honorarium" which is being paid to the petitioners in the present days of price hike. If necessary, the respondents may appoint an expert body for the said purpose. However, the entire exercise should be done keeping in view the principles flowing from Articles 23 and 43 of the Constitution of India.

Thus, in the interest of justice, I deem it proper to direct the respondents to reconsider the adequacy of amount of "honorarium" payable to the Gurujis. This exercise be completed within four months and appropriate orders be passed.

With the aforesaid, petitions stand disposed of.

The order passed by the Gwalior Bench in the aforesaid petition has also been affirmed by the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 18579/2012 decided on 30.10.2013, with the following observations:-

We notice that the petitioners were appointed on the basis of an Education Scheme after coming into force of the Panchayat Raj Evam Gram Swaraj Adhiniyam, 1993, by which certain posts were created as Shiksha Karmis, Samvidakarmi, etc. Petitioners submit that they are also performing the work of Assistant Teachers/Shiksha Karmis /Samvidakarmies, consequently, at least, minimum pay scale attached to those posts be given to them. Petitioners, admittedly, were not appointed pursuant to any statutory rules but they were appointed pursuant to an education programme. Consequently, their appointment and terms and conditions were governed by that scheme and not by the statutory rules. There is nothing to show that the petitioners have undergone any process of selection as such. Therefore, the claim that they should be equated with the teachers appointed following the statutory rules, cannot be accepted. The counsel for the petitioners also could not establish that the method of appointment, nature of work, quantum of work, quality of work, nature of responsibilities are identical to those teachers who are appointed following the statutory rules, referred to earlier.

Learned Single Judge and the Division Bench, on facts have found so and we find no illegality in those findings. The learned Single Judge, noticing that the amount of honorarium is shockingly inadequate in the present scenario, gave a direction to the State Government to examine whether the said amount could be enhanced. In our view, that is the only relief that can be granted to the petitioners which the learned Single Judge has granted. We, therefore, find no reason to entertain this SLP and the same is dismissed as above.

It is stated by the learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State that pursuant to the directions issued by the Gwalior Bench, the State has reconsidered the adequacy of the amount of honorarium being paid to the Gurujis and has revised the same.

In view of the aforesaid subsequent events that have occurred, I do not find any reason to issue any direction for consideration of the cases of the petitioners in the light of the order passed by this Court in W.A. No. 596/2010. If the petitioners have any other grievance that remains to be considered and is required to be considered in the light of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Gopal Chawala and others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and others, , they would be at liberty to approach the State Government for the same.

With the aforesaid observation the petition, filed by the petitioners, stands dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.